‘NO TINKERING’

The Government’s attempt to rush a bill through Parliament to subsume the Office of the Political Ombudsman (OPO) into the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) was met with strong resistance from a former government minister as well as the parliamentary Opposition on Tuesday.

Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, who tabled the bill and signalled his intention to take it through all its stages during the sitting, argued that there was an urgent need to have an adjudicator to police the conduct of politicians in the run-up to the local government polls, which are due next month.

Breaking ranks with the governing party on the bill, Karl Samuda – one of the longest-serving lawmakers who also sat on the Electoral Advisory Committee and its successor body, the ECJ, for 11 years – warned the Government against “tampering with the Electoral Commission of Jamaica”.

“This is, arguably, the most far-reaching, it’s one of the most important institutions of not only Jamaica but the entire hemisphere,” Samuda said of the ECJ.

“It is not an institution that can take tinkering,” said Samuda, adding, “I do not buy the idea that we are in a hurry because we are having an election.

“Mechanisms can be found with creative minds and well-thinking people where we can solve that problem without tampering with what we have achieved,” he insisted.

Samuda said the Office of the Political Ombudsman operated without teeth for years, but it was not beyond the collective wisdom of Parliament to fix that.

“But do not tamper with the Electoral Commission of Jamaica,” he warned.

In a Gleaner interview last evening, Jamaicans for Justice Executive Director Mickel Jackson said the human rights group, in its submission to the Constitutional Reform Committee, made it clear that it was against any move to make the OPO redundant or to subsume the office into the ECJ.

“If this body were to be subsumed within the ECJ, it means that the commission that deals with things such as ridding the country of gerrymandering may be caught up in the conflict that takes place in the political arena,” said Jackson.

She also expressed concern that the Government tabled the bill in Parliament on the same day it was pushing for its passage. She said that parliamentarians and any ruling party must recognise the sanctity of the House of Representatives and the expected role of each legislator.

“You cannot table a bill of this magnitude and expect it to be passed the same day,” she argued.

The JFJ head called on the Government to revisit the bill and return with a proposed law that sees the OPO remaining as an independent commission of Parliament, but having increased powers to get its work done.

INDIVISIBLE BODY

In making a case for the passage of the bill, Chuck contended that the nine commissioners of the ECJ were firm in their belief that the role and responsibilities of the political ombudsman are best assumed as an indivisible body.

Chuck told lawmakers that ECJ Chairman Earl Jarrett wrote to him indicating that the electoral body was in support of taking on the role of the political ombudsman.

He said Jarrett noted that the ECJ was of the view that “all commissioners should perform the functions of the political ombudsman. The matters to be addressed by the ombudsman are primarily related to conduct. We believe that the full commission, including both selected and nominated commissioners, are best suited to address the nuances related to conduct and we strongly suggest that in this regard, the commissioners shall be indivisible”.

But Opposition Leader Mark Golding charged that members on his side of the political divide would not support this move for various reasons. He castigated the Government for taking a bill to Parliament for passage on the same day, adding that he was seeing the proposed law for the first time.

Further, he said the plan was misguided as the ECJ had developed an enviable reputation over many years that could become tainted.

Golding said that there should have been bipartisan discussion on the bill before it was tabled in Parliament.

The opposition leader added that the bill said nothing about how the commissioners would operate, noting that there were no regulations accompanying the proposed law.

Opposition legislator Fitz Jackson cautioned against getting the ECJ involved in political “cass cass” as the election cycle heats up.

“The Office of the Political Ombudsman keeps the ECJ sterile of the ‘cass cass’ and issues that will injure the commission,” he noted.

He encouraged the Government to use the Vale Royal talks to engage the Opposition on the issue.

“Minister, pause on this one! Let us sit down tonight and work out something to deal with the looming election,” said Jackson.

At the end of the debate, Chuck relented and signalled that discussions would be held on the proposed statute before a final decision on the way forward.

edmond.campbell@gleanerjm.com